Poet laureate of 1986 immigration reform looks back, ahead

On Nov. 6, 1986, a 36-year-old editorial writer for the San Diego Evening Tribune wrote this lead:

“Immigration reform was signed into law today, with political fanfare. Illegal aliens praying for amnesty rejoiced privately. But on the border, the triumph of law over anarchy was seasoned with skepticism and anxiety.”

Jonathan Freedman would win a Pulitzer Prize, journalism’s Oscar, for his starring role in the newspaper’s relentless six-year crusade on behalf of sweeping immigration reform.

More than a year before President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, Freedman wrote: “The comprehensive nature of immigration reform must remain intact. The two key provisions are employer sanctions, to outlaw the hiring of illegal aliens, and amnesty, to give longtime illegal residents permanent residence. Without them you don’t have comprehensive reform. Other provisions — a temporary guest-worker program for agriculture, a U.S. employment identification system, protective measures against discrimination that results from employer sanctions and the costs of legalization — these are subjects for debate.”

In 1988, a wiser and sadder Freedman assessed the final bill’s impact in an op-ed column:

“Immigration reform taught many immigrant Americans to believe in the political process. Americans, when faced with a complicated and painful choice, did not resort to violence. Rather, they pressured Congress to stop hiding its head in the sand and forge a compromise.

“But immigrants also learned that one law cannot erase a complicated and painful reality. Immigration reform is a beginning, not an end. Congress must face the fact that amnesty fell short of expectations. Millions remain in hiding. More people are crossing the border without papers. Employer sanctions are not being enforced effectively. This country faces the prospect of a permanent alien nation existing within its borders, threatening undocumented families and Americans’ system of law.”

The nation’s strongest cheerleader for reform turned out to be one of its toughest early critics.

Speaking from his home in the Bay Area, Freedman, now a writer in his 60s, said the manifest failure to enforce employer sanctions in the late ’80s was a “betrayal” that triggered a toxic backlash, especially in border states like California.

In 1994, for example, Proposition 187, called SOS (Save Our State), divided California into hostile camps. A large majority voted to deny unauthorized immigrants education and social services. The benevolent emotions of arms-open reform had turned to bitter bile.

Many who were here then remember how bad the mood was. Images of unauthorized immigrants swarming across the border and around checkpoints. Over a five-year period, from 1987 to 1992, 160 fleeing immigrants were killed on California highways, carnage that led to the iconic roadside silhouette of a Latino family — father, mother, daughter — running for dear life.

In rapid succession, Operation Gatekeeper (dubbed “Deathkeeper” by immigrant champions) forced border-crossers from Tijuana into desert terrain, where many died of exposure. The Minutemen, self-appointed paramilitary groups, sprang up. Politicians like former Congressman Brian Bilbray railed against any reform that smacked of amnesty, a dirty word in the far-right lexicon. Cities such as Escondido passed ordinances designed to banish the undocumented. “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” became the mantra of strong-border activists.

And then, as reflected in the 2012 presidential election, the country hit a demographic tipping point.

Republicans, even some out on the far right wing, suddenly realized that Latino voters, many of whom owe their voting rights to the 1986 reform act, will determine who will win future national elections.

The news out of Washington is that bipartisan immigration reform is more likely than not. Once again, the stars have aligned to usher those working in the shadows into the rich gumbo of the American family.

“We hoped reform would be a one-time deal,” Freedman told me. “We were wrong. This is a process that goes on.”

Will there be diablos in the details of Reform 2.0? History says yes, more than can be predicted. Problems will be solved; others created. “But it’s always a good thing to recognize reality,” Freedman said.

On balance, he said, this second swipe at reform should be a forward step toward a sane policy that respects the rule of law, the legitimacy of our border, while at the same time respecting the human rights, the humanity, of those who have come to this country, legally or illegally, to enrich the nation’s DNA.

Of that much, Jonathan Freedman, San Diego’s poet laureate of immigration reform, is all but certain.